Oscar Pistorius Gets Away with Murder

The Week

Oscar Pistorius has been found guilty of culpable homicide, after yesterday being cleared of murdering Reeva Steenkamp on Valentine's Day last year. Reading from her written judgment, Judge Thokozile Masipa told the court that there was not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the athlete was guilty of premeditated murder or murder. He was also found guilty on one firearms charge, but acquitted on two others. Pistorius could face up to 15 years in jail on the culpable homicide charge, but he will not be sentenced until next month.

Masipa recaps the four counts against Pistorius and her findings. She repeats again that the state did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Pistorius was guilty of premeditated murder or murder. Today, she is giving a detailed legal explanation of why she acquitted Pistorius of murder dolus eventualis – a decision which received some criticism from legal experts yesterday. Finally, Masipa asks Pistorius to stand and announces:

• Count one: not guilty of murdering Reeva Steenkamp, but guilty of culpable homicide
• Count two: not guilty of firearms charge relating to sunroof incident
• Count three: guilty of negligence in regards to firearms charge relating to Tashas restaurant
• Count four: not guilty of firearms charge relating to possession of illegal ammunition

The second firearms charge faced by Pistorius relates to an incident in January, before Steenkamp's death, when a Glock pistol went off while in his possession in a Johannesburg restaurant called Tashas. Masipa says Pistorius may not have intended to fire the gun, but this "does not absolve" him from the crime of negligence. Masipa says she accepts in full the evidence of state witness Kevin Lerena. Pistorius was trained in firearms, she says. "He should not have asked for a firearm in a restaurant full of patrons." The state has proved beyond reasonable doubt that he is guilty on this count, says the judge.

Like so many gun nuts in the United States, Oscar should have been disarmed long ago.  A simple one strike you're out policy would have seen to that. Any one of his several gun incidents or domestic abuse incidents should have seen to it.

But, also in typical form, he was not only not disarmed when he should have been, right up to the very end he was given the benefit of the every doubt, and then some. "Not enough evidence" to prove murder, sorta like O.J.  He "may not have intended to fire the gun" in Tashas restaurant. As for "firing a gun out of an open car sunroof in September 2012," no problem since Darren Fresco was "not an impressive witness at all."

A travesty of justice took place on the world stage. Another unfit and dangerous gun owner, whining and crying with self-pity was not held properly accountable for the death of another.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment